 The next item of business is a debate on motion 5155, in the name of Ben Macpherson, on social security additional payments bill UK legislation. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak buttons, and I call on Ben Macpherson to speak to and move the motion up to seven minutes, minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The UK cost of living crisis is of deep concern to people across Scotland and, of course, to all of us who serve them. That is why, as well as taking a wide set of actions ourselves totaling around £3 billion, the Scottish Government has continually urged the UK Government in good faith to use the powers at their disposal to address the unprecedented increases in the cost of living. On 26 May, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the House of Commons a range of interventions to support people struggling financially, and we welcome those and continue to welcome them. That included a number of interventions on social security, including an additional £650 in cost of living payments for those on means-tested benefits. It also included a disability cost of living payment worth £150 to be paid from September to those in receipt of devolved non-means-tested disability benefits. People who receive child disability payment and adult disability payment delivered by Social Security Scotland will be among those entitled to the sum. The UK Government has said that approximately 8 million people across the United Kingdom will receive extra payments. To enable that, the UK Government has introduced the Social Security additional payments bill in the UK Parliament. The UK Government has not requested the Scottish Parliament's consent for the bill. It is their view that the provisions in the bill are reserved matters as temporary additional payments intended to respond to the rising costs of living. However, it is my view that the payments, as a form of assistance provided to individuals who have a short-term need for financial support to avoid a risk to their wellbeing, can be legislated for in the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. It is therefore the Scottish Government's view that the bill relates to devolved matters. That is why it is necessary to lodge legislative consent motion, although the UK Government has not requested one. In doing so, we will ensure that the devolution settlement is properly respected and, importantly, that a precedent for overriding the devolution settlement is not established. The only alternative to a legislative consent motion would be to pass legislation in the Scottish Parliament to an extremely truncated timescale. The legislation would need to come into force by 30 June to match the UK Government's timetable and ensure that payments can be made when intended. Attempting to pass legislation in such expedited fashion carries risk, in our view, to greater risk. It is important that people in Scotland receive the financial support that the UK Government announced on 26 May as soon as possible. It is my view that introducing legislation in the Scottish Parliament is not necessary nor proportionate in the circumstances when a legislative consent motion is a suitable legislative vehicle that exists to quickly implement the payments UK-wide. Providing legislative consent to the UK Social Security Additional Payments Bill is the advisable course of action, and I therefore move that motion in my name and hope that Parliament will support it. We have many debates in the chamber which are constructive and helpful. I have seen no reason why we are debating this tonight. We are going to, in a few minutes' time, all vote for us, and we are going to be grateful for the money that we are receiving from the Westminster Government. The only reason we are debating this is that I am afraid of SNP grievance in regard to Westminster doing something for disabled people compared to this Scottish Government. When this came to committee, no SNP member spoke about it. They all welcomed it and were happy to accept it, so we are seeing the SNP Government running forward more grievance against Westminster. What we should be doing today is thanking the Westminster Government, thanking the DWP for bailing them out yet again. Let's see what they are doing. The UK Government is introducing a 650 cost of living payment for every household on means-tested benefits. The UK Government is introducing a £300 pensioner cost for living payment for every pensioner household in the seat of winter fuel payment. The UK Government is introducing a 150 disability cost of living payment to those in the seat of disability benefits. I will benefit from that myself. Finally, this equates £1,200 for those on the lowest incomes around one-third of all households. What has the Scottish Government done? Absolutely nothing. What the Scottish Government should be doing is rather than the grievance moaning policy, is to take responsibility for the benefits that they are running. Instead of what we are doing, we are handing them back to the DWP to say that we are not ready to deal with it. Can you please bear aside and look after us again? Finally, what we should be absolutely worried about is that the IFS is predicting a £3.5 billion gap in the SNP finances by 2026-2027. Shouldn't that be what the Scottish Government is concentrating on? Shouldn't that be what the Scottish Government should be trying to bridge that gap rather than slagging off for Westminster Government? The Westminster Government has reached out to those who are most vulnerable in our society. Will the Scottish Government accept it or, of course, it will, but only with the grievance that comes after it? Across the country, households are facing a cost of living crisis. Bills are rocketing, the cost of petto is rising, and no sign of stopping and food prices are sky-high. Money is going nowhere near, as far as it used to. Of course, additional help is welcome, and we support that additional help and the bill that brings it. However, it should not have taken as long as it has for the Tories to be dragged, kicking and screaming into action, and grateful is not exactly the emotion that I think many people will feel. I would imagine that it is more a sense of relief and frustration. I welcome the moves to push the legislation through the UK parliamentary process as fast as possible, so that there is money in people's pockets by 14 July. Let's be honest. Had ministers listened to the Labour Party, acted sooner and uprated benefits by a measure closer to inflation, they could have avoided forcing people into months of uncertainty and struggle. The cost of living crisis is already stinging. Had the action been taken quicker, people would not have been left to suffer to accumulate debt to sacrifice other costs, or in some cases choose between heating and eating. We on these benches know that we cannot rely on a Tory Government to support disabled people or people in poverty. In fact, when we break it down, all that they are actually doing by giving disabled people an additional £150 is replacing money that they took from them in other ways, such as failing to uplift legacy benefits or making those on PIP, DLA and attendance allowance ineligible for warm homes discount, but they have at least recognised that there are additional costs associated with being a disabled person and built that policy to reflect that. The same cannot be said of the Scottish Government. In 2018, Scope found that Scots disabled people spent on average £632 a month on disability-related expenses, including uses of heating. One in five disabled adults face additional costs of over £1,000 a month, and those are the highest excess costs across the UK. Disabled people also have fewer savings than non-disabled people. Once all of those costs are taken into account, half a million disabled people in their families in Scotland are living in poverty. That is 48 per cent of all the people in Scotland living in poverty, despite disabled people only representing 22 per cent of the population. While I welcome any money that the UK Government's long-overdure recognition coming from the UK Government and the long-overdure recognition of that need for targeted support, particularly in a cost-of-living crisis, let me also be clear that what is being provided because of that and the previous actions of the Tory Government is not coming close to meeting the need. The same goes for the additional money that is given to pensioners. Again, it is absolutely right to recognise that older people need more support, but all the Tories are doing with this new £300 cost 11 payment for pensioners is putting money back in the pockets that they themselves emptied by allowing a £500 real-terms cut to state pensions. With the rising costs, even that additional payment will still leave pensioners hundreds of pounds worse off. Those on pension credit can, of course, claim the £650, but the impact of that is stifled but significantly by levels of low uptake, so to make sure that the money gets to those that it is intended, both Governments must ensure and promote uptake. Except for the Tory benches, I think that we probably all agree that the Chancellor's measures have been lacking every step of the way, but so too have those of the Scottish Government. When consequentials came to Scotland following the council tax rebate policy, we urged them not to copy the Tories, presented a fully-costed plan that recognised the additional costs for priority groups, and the need for targeted measures. We would have put £400 in the pockets of those struggling to make ends meet, disabled people, carers, pensioners and low-income families, and the SNP refused. When regulations came to committee, the SNP refused to extend winter heating allowance to all disabled people, despite accepting the entire cost of fuel. Now, even the Tories have recognised the need for targeted support, so for so many groups of people living in poverty, including disabled people, the Scottish Government have failed to do enough to, and for some they have done nothing at all. There has been no specific cost to living support for disabled people, unpaid carers or pensioners. As I bring my remarks to close, let me highlight unpaid carers. Throughout the pandemic, we clapped for them, paid and unpaid. We held them up as key workers, relied on them to pick up the pieces when the state could not do it, have both their Governments forgotten the contribution that they made, have their memories of how much unpaid carers put in to keep this country going faded or are they just overlooking their plight. Unpaid carers are likely to have higher energy bills because the caring responsibilities and neither Government have included them in their packages. It is time that SNP Greens and Tories stepped up to the plate. People across Scotland are struggling. Those measures put forward by the UK Government will lighten it slightly, but they will not ease the burden for enough people. The UK Government must go further, and so must the SNP Government here in Scotland. They have powers and they have not used them enough. I say to the minister here today, by all means, demand more from the Tories than we will do, but take your own advice, recognise your own responsibility and realise that you too must step up for the people of Scotland. I now call on the minister to wind up the debate. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and to colleagues. I appreciate this debate with schedule at short notice, and I am so grateful to all members across the chamber for their time this afternoon and for their contributions, although I think that the contribution for Mr Balfour was unnecessarily tribal and critical. The UK Government social security additional payments bill is a bill in order to aim to alleviate the pressures that people are experiencing currently due to the cost of living crisis. Although there is clearly a need for much more comprehensive package of support using the headroom that the chancellor has and the extensive fiscal emergency powers at his disposal, it is important that we here do not cause any delay to the payments getting to those who need them. We want people to get those payments, and that is why we are undertaking the legislative consent motion today. The Scottish Government is committed to supporting the delivery of the measures following the chancellor's statement. I believe that passing the legislative consent motion is the most efficient and effective way to do so, and it is required because that relates to devolved matters. Given the extremely limited time between the announcement of the measures in the UK bill and its introduction, the truncated timetable in which the UK Government is legislating would simply not be feasible to introduce Scottish legislation, as I said in my opening remarks, without the risk of delaying delivery of the provisions, and we want them to happen. We are doing the right thing here, and unnecessary criticism from the Conservative benches are just unhelpful in the scenario when we are trying to collaborate in order to provide assistance to the people of Scotland. I always appreciate that colleagues will push us as a Government to do as much as we can. That is why we are delivering around £3 billion of support for people in the cost of living crisis. For example, our child winter heating assistance, which is only available in Scotland. For example, our Scottish child payment, which is only available in Scotland, and a wide range of other measures as well, which there is not time to go through today. We need the UK Government to do more, but we want to facilitate what has been announced. I would like to close by reiterating this Government's call for more action from the UK Government to address the unprecedented rise in the cost of living above and beyond what is set out in its bill. Nevertheless, we wish to make sure that we facilitate the delivery of that support that has been announced, and it is important that it is done so without delay. Therefore, I urge Parliament to pass that motion. That concludes the debate on social security additional payments bill UK legislation. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of business motion 5144 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press their request to speak button now, and I call on George Adam to move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I say with the utmost respect for you and the officer, Presiding Officer. At last week's bureau meeting, the minister for parliamentary business said in essence to the meeting that the SNP Government will do as it pleases in relation to this Parliament, and they do, and they will, for as long as the Greens vote through their every decision. It is important that people watching the proceedings of this Parliament know that the business of this Parliament is not decided by bureau, Presiding Officer, but is instead dictated to this Parliament by Nicola Sturgeon and her cabinet. That can be seen in the frequent last-minute changes to the business programme after cabinet meetings, such as today's utterly pointless statement from Angus Robertson, in which Trump bureaus previously agreed plans. Even the bureau's business programme papers come with a stamp at the bottom of each page reading agreed at cabinet. Sadly, this place is set up in such a way as to protect the executive and not scrutinise it. The cabinet's business motion adds an hour-long statement on an unwanted independence referendum on Tuesday, which pushes back consideration of the highly contentious Covid power grab bill until even later in the day. Then, on Wednesday, there is a 90-minute debate on reserved matters. This time could have been used to actually improve services for the people of Scotland using the many powers that are available to us in this Parliament. My amendment seeks to remove the grievance mongering and insert statements on important matters. Moreover, after weeks of avoidable late finishes, my amendment brings some consistency to decision time for those MSPs with younger families. What happened to the lessons learned from MSPs who stood down in 2021, citing the incompatibility of balancing Parliament with a family life? Gail Ross, Ruth Davidson, Jenny Marra—to name but a few—forgotten in favour of a business programme double stacked with rushed legislation and the First Minister's grievance bingo card. With Scotland's public services in dire need of rescue, we do not support the cabinet's additions to next week's business programme. Indeed, we cannot support a business programme forced on this Parliament by an uncompromising Nicola Sturgeon. That is why I move the amendment in my name. I call on George Adam to respond on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau. We discussed all of this at length at the Parliamentary Bureau and, as always, I tried to be accommodating to Opposition members within the chamber. As always, I will keep this short and to the point that the Scottish Government will continue to focus its efforts on passing important legislation and representing the people of Scotland. The question is that amendment 5144.1, in the name of Stephen Kerr, which seeks to amend motion 5144 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote and there will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.